Human Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good afternoon, committee members.

Welcome to meeting number 106 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members have the option of appearing virtually or in the room. Witnesses and committee members are appearing in person this afternoon.

You have the option of choosing to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. I wish to advise you to keep your earpiece away from the mic to protect the interpreters. If there is a loss of interpretation service, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while it is being clarified.

I remind members that all comments must be addressed through the chair. To do that, simply raise your hand in the room to get my attention, and I will recognize you.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C‑58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

For today's meeting, we'll be hearing from representatives of two organizations at their request. A third organization was invited to appear, but asked to be rescheduled to a meeting later in April, so that meeting will have four organizations on the panel. I did agree to that request.

Today, from the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president; Chris Roberts, director, social and economic policy department; and from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Ryan Greer, vice-president, public affairs and national policy.

Each group will have five minutes for an opening statement.

Ms. Bruske, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The Canadian Labour Congress is Canada's largest central labour body. We represent over 55 different unions and over three million workers in every sector and in every industry from coast to coast.

The CLC strongly supports Bill C-58 and urges the committee to strengthen the bill and to report the bill back to the House for third reading as quickly as possible.

In my over 30 years as a union activist, I have walked on countless picket lines in every part of this country. I have walked in the heat, the cold, the rain and the middle of the night with workers right across this country. I've walked with them on day one, and I've walked with them on day 123 of their strike or lockout.

Let's be clear. The decision to walk a picket line is never an easy decision for a worker to make. These are kitchen table conversations that workers have with their families. Can I afford the meagre offer the employer is putting forward? Worse, can I afford the takeaways that the employer has tabled in the concessions it is demanding from me, or am I prepared to forgo a paycheque and risk absolutely everything that I have built up with this employer in order to demand a fair deal by walking a picket line?

No worker wants to walk a picket line. What they want is a fair deal that's reached at a bargaining table with good conversations happening between the parties. Let's be clear. At times, it's not the worker's choice to be walking a picket line or not. Rather, it is the employer who chooses to lock out workers and then rub salt in the wound by hiring scab labour. That employer is sending workers one message, and it's this: If you want to see your jobs and your wages again, you had better back down and accept the offer that we are putting forward.

When employers have scabs in their back pocket, they don't need to come to the table to bargain fairly. They don't need to be serious about reaching a collective agreement. Workers, on the other hand, risk absolutely everything when they walk that picket line because—let's be honest here—some employers don't ever intend to get to a fair collective agreement. They use a lockout, or they push workers into a strike position by tabling massive concessions or to try to get rid of union representation in their workplace.

My co-worker from many years ago, Judy Starr, had worked at Loblaws for many years when our very financially sound employer demanded a reduction to our wages and benefits way back in 1987. Judy was a single parent of three kids living in social housing, and she knew that walking a picket line meant no regular paycheque for weeks to come. She also knew that not walking that picket line would mean an even harder time for her family to try to make ends meet. She rallied her co-workers—including me—to take on the employer's demands for concessions by walking that picket line, and our employer repaid workers like Judy by replacing her with scabs on day number one.

The use of scabs in that strike meant that strike dragged on for 124 days. That was 124 days where those workers had no paycheque while the employer continued doing business as usual. We workers who had diligently worked for that employer were made to walk a picket line just to keep what we had. It wasn't to make gains in that contract; it was to keep what we had.

Once the strike started, it was very clear that this was more than just a dispute about reaching a new collective agreement. It was about the very right of these workers to be able to have a voice at our workplace and to continue to be represented by a union.

For decades, the CLC has urged government to pass anti-scab legislation, and I want to commend the NDP and the Liberal government for working together to finally make this a reality. We have seen that this bill has unanimous support, and there is no excuse for delaying in adopting and bringing this legislation into force. Eighteen months is unnecessarily long, and it's far too long to be bringing this bill into effect.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Bruske.

Mr. Greer, you have five minutes, please.

[Ryan Greer, Vice President, Public Affairs and National Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members, for having me here today on behalf of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

Manufacturing generates 10% of Canada's GDP, produces nearly two-thirds of Canada’s value-added exports and employs 1.8 million people in high-paying jobs across the country. It is important that the views of manufacturers are reflected in your deliberations and decisions regarding Bill C-58.

Up front, I want to note that my remarks will be focused on how this bill will impact manufacturers' reliance on railways and ports—critical enablers of Canada’s industrial economy. Their importance of course extends beyond the manufacturing sector. Ports and railways are the tangible connections that facilitate the functioning of our economy and the well-being of Canadians.

CME opposes Bill C-58. Many of our concerns with banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries are the same concerns that have been expressed by Parliament over the last decade and a half when it has voted against several similar initiatives.

Banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries may disrupt the delicate balance that exists in Canada’s collective bargaining system. The government's own discussion paper on this legislation stated that most studies on prohibiting replacement workers showed that they resulted in more frequent strikes and lockouts.

More labour disruptions will negatively impact small, medium and large manufacturers that rely on Canada’s railways and ports to access critical inputs and to get their goods to Canadian consumers and global customers.

Collective bargaining is an important part of a fair and functioning economy. However, there is a fundamental difference between a work stoppage at a port or railway and most other public or private organizations. The interconnected nature of modern manufacturing and logistics means that disruptions in these parts of the supply chain reverberate through the entire economy. It is essential that supply chains continue to function even during times of collective bargaining.

When labour action stops the movement of goods, it imposes harm on manufacturers in communities that are often hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away. This is neither fair nor functioning. It is imperative that the well-being of those businesses, their workers and their families also be taken into account in your study of this bill.

While CME does not support the legislation, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in your work in the hope that this committee will adopt amendments to the bill that would minimize its harm to manufacturers, the broader economy and Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.

CME recommends that this bill include a provision that grants authority to the Governor in Council to refer labour disputes in critical supply chain sectors to binding arbitration if parties cannot reach a negotiated agreement through collective bargaining.

Given the likelihood that the legislation will increase supply chain disruptions, it is appropriate to provide the federal government with the tools necessary to facilitate a resolution to disputes when they harm the national interest.

Additionally, we believe there are other amendments that could be made to the bill to further minimize supply chain uncertainty.

We recommend that proposed subsection 94(7) of the legislation be expanded to allow an employer to use a prohibited worker when there is an imminent or serious threat to the national interest or national economic security.

We also recommend that section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code be expanded to prevent imminent harm to the national interest or national economic security.

Again, our preference is that the legislation does not proceed. However, given the likelihood that it will, we urge you to seriously consider amendments that will support the integrity and resilience of Canada’s supply chains.

Last fall, Minister O’Regan announced a review process under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code to examine the structural issues underlying the recent longshoring dispute at our west coast ports, as well as some similar disputes. He had this to say:

Canada is a reliable trading partner to the world. That is a good thing for every employer and worker in this country. But our credibility depends on the stable operation of our supply chains. We must do everything we can to preserve that stability.

It is in that spirt CME is asking this committee to take steps to help preserve Canada’s supply chain credibility and stability. Canadian manufacturers are depending on it.

Thanks for having us here, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Greer.

I would like to welcome Mr. Boulerice and Mr. Sheehan.

We'll start with Mrs. Gray, who will have the floor for six minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin, I didn't want to interrupt the witnesses, but there's an interpretation problem again. We have this echoing. I don't know if it's going to continue for the whole meeting. I know in the past if they couldn't resolve it.... It appears the translators are working remotely again. Maybe we could just turn the sound up in the room. Otherwise you do have echoing even when listening to the same language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

I've had the clerk check on that. I've been advised that it meets the standards and requirements for the House of Commons translation. I'm told it's easier, as I'm doing.... I just take my earpiece away, because it is a bit distracting, I agree, but it meets the House of Commons standards.

Madam Gray, you have six minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

It was announced last week that the unemployment rate jumped to 6.1% in March 2024, up from 5.8% in February and a full percentage point higher than a year ago.

Are you concerned about this, and are you hearing from your members or workers about it?

That question is to both witnesses, but I'll start with Mr. Greer.

[Ryan Greer]

The short answer is yes.

In addition to the figures you referenced, a lot of the underlying economic growth figures are extremely concerning to our members and the communities in which they operate, for all the reasons you would assume. They create a less favourable environment in which to hire, scale up and go after new market opportunities; they create a more challenging environment in which to attract investment; and they create issues for businesses looking to expand.

We have long advocated for a more competitive economic environment in which our members can operate. There is a range of tax, regulatory, trade and other decisions that we believe are not only desirable but necessary to help generate growth that can fund the social safety net that is important to our members, their families and, of course, everyone around this table.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to the Canadian Labour Congress.

[Bea Bruske]

Of course we are very concerned about any rise in the unemployment rate. Workers, quite frankly, want good, stable employment, and that means earning a living wage in a community in which they can afford to live that has transit they can afford to take to work. When those pieces are missing, and when employment is precarious, part-time or casual, it is an impediment to taking on other roles when there is a lack of child care or elder care in the community. We need to look at all aspects of our society to determine how we can best support workers so they can take on some of those jobs.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's great. Thank you very much.

In contrast, we saw unemployment in the United States drop to 3.8% because of the strength of the U.S. economy. Do you have a sense, based on your experience or what you're hearing, why more people in Canada are losing their jobs than in the U.S.?

I'll put the same question to both of you, and I'll start with Mr. Greer again.

[Ryan Greer]

There are a number of reasons for this disparity, but at the heart of it is the difference in productivity between Canada and the U.S. and the significant productivity increase in the U.S. that we haven't seen in Canada.

There are some structural reasons for that. You might think of the types of investments that help drive productivity in the U.S. military industrial complex, but there are also a bunch of underlying policy reasons around taxation, regulatory and other decisions that drive investment, along with regulatory, project and—germane to this discussion—supply chain uncertainty. Customers and investors look at disputes like the one last year on the west coast involving B.C. ports, which create questions in their minds about investing in this market or buying from Canadian manufacturers.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I'll put the same question to Ms. Bruske.

[Bea Bruske]

Again, workers want jobs that are steady and give them the opportunity to progress. That generally means working under a collective agreement that gives them a voice at work. We very much encourage working with employers at bargaining tables to set the scene for long-term employment for those workers. It is critically important to have access to a union card; to be able to sit down at a bargaining table to discuss the issues that matter at a particular workplace; to have regular wage increases; and to have opportunities to advance at work. It's a tripartite situation we need to take on to bring employers and levels of government to the table to look at the conditions that might encourage full employment.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

For my next question, I wanted to dive into the context of working-class people who are trying to build their lives and/or look towards retirement. Figures just released show that the average Canadian family must now pay 63.5% of their total pre-tax household income in order to afford the mortgage payments on a typical home in Canada. For the members and organizations you represent, it's even worse in British Columbia, where that figure is 106%, which means the family must pay more than their entire income to buy a home.

Are you hearing these concerns from members or workers?

Again, I'll ask you both the same question, starting with Mr. Greer.

[Ryan Greer]

Yes; it goes back to the previous answer around Canada's labour productivity. More productive labour markets mean more job creation, lower unemployment and higher earnings, all of which raise the quality of life for Canadians, Canadian workers and their families. Tackling the underlying issues that are driving Canada's low productivity, we believe, is a way to help reverse that trend in the figures that you've cited.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Bruske.

[Bea Bruske]

Affordability is top of mind for all workers in Canada, regardless of where you go, and who you speak with in any sector. Speaking with a classroom of students just last week, they cited that as their number one issue, and, of course, that's what we hear everywhere, right?

Second to that issue is the issue of housing, and that's tightly tied together. Workers are looking for all levels of government to come up with solutions to affordability issues. That means coming up with investments for colleges and universities to lower tuition rates, for example. That means finding solutions to the housing crisis, and finding a variety of different kinds of housing that speak to the variety of needs of Canadians, whether they're first-time homebuyers or elderly individuals looking to live in a co-op kind of environment. We need to make investments in those kinds of things. It means things like a pharmacare system, so they can actually afford their medications. It means building our employment insurance system for it to be robust, so that people can rely on those things. That's what workers are looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Bruske and Mrs. Gray.

Mr. Sheehan, you have six minutes.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much to the presenters, as well, for their presentations.

Lana Payne from Unifor testified here, and mentioned that strikes with replacement workers last longer than regular strikes. One of the things that you had mentioned...and we're keeping on the theme of affordability, because you brought this up, Bea. You've walked the line and you've supported people in strike positions. You mentioned that they make less pay. I think they call it strike pay.

How does that work, Bea, and how is that challenging for a middle-class family? We heard at this committee about a grandmother who was trying to support her children and grandchildren.

Could you please explain to the committee what strike pay is?

[Bea Bruske]

Absolutely. When a worker is out on strike, or when there's a lockout, generally speaking, most unions will have a strike fund. How much workers get paid while they're out on a strike will differ based on what their union can afford, quite frankly. Some unions might be able to almost make you whole, but that's very rare. For the most part, you're taking a significant hit in your paycheque. It would be less than 50% of what you would be making if you were at work.

That is a calculated decision that workers have to make as to whether or not they can actually afford to go out on strike. We might think that's an easy decision to make. They're upset. They're angry. They want to take strike action. That is not an easy decision. Something has to build up in front of those workers before they make that kind of a decision. It's generally multiple rounds of bargaining that have led to this particular situation. It's often because the employer is looking to take something away, there's a respect and dignity issue in the workplace, or there's a significant affordability issue. These things are not overnight decisions. These are difficult decisions.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

That creates a challenge, then. You have replacement workers being brought in. You have workers trying to support their families and themselves while making significantly less, so you can see why some folks wouldn't support using replacement workers when it's challenging workers. I really appreciate you clarifying that for us.

I want to bring up one other thing. The previous government brought in two pieces of legislation which quite frankly the union movement of all stripes said were the most anti-union pieces of legislation that it had seen in forever. They were Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, I believe.

Could you please explain to the committee what they were, and why were they punitive?

[Bea Bruske]

When workers decide to go on strike, it's after a lot of frustration that comes to the fore. I will point out that in many situations where scabs are used, scabs are hired, and paid more than the very workers who are out on strike. That was certainly the case in my home province of Manitoba where there was a liquor control commission strike last year. The employees were making near minimum wage as new hires, whereas scabs were hired at $20 an hour. That is a further frustration that leads to a lot of anger on the picket line.

You mentioned two very egregious pieces of legislation, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Bill C-377 was really designed to ensure that unions were tied up in knots with all kinds of regulations, and reporting their union finances to outside agencies.

Union leaders are democratically elected. Union members have the right to see their financial statements at any given point in time. Union members are elected to boards as trustees. They have regular access to their union statements. They know how their union is spending their money and defending their interests. That was specific in tying unions up with a whole bunch of time, paperwork and energy surrounding the ability to not be able to perform, and not be able to represent their members as well as possible.

Bill C-525 was really designed to limit the amount of unionization within the federal public sector. We know that when you carry a union card in your back pocket, you have a greater chance to be part of Canada's middle class. We want all workers to have the ability to sit at a bargaining table, if they so choose, and be represented by a union to bargain a fair deal.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

Bill C-58 could be said to eclipse Bill C-377 and Bill C-525—pun intended. I really appreciate that.

Ryan, you mentioned the different transportation networks that you wanted to talk about. I'm also on the trade committee. At the trade committee, the longshore people mentioned that they kept using replacement workers and whatnot, and it was really hard to get the employer at the table. This was their testimony. Quite frankly, they felt it prolonged what happened out west, and it shouldn't have.

Would you not agree that the best deals are done at the table, and that we ought to get people at the table consistently? This longshoreman—it was “man” at the time—said they would have to present, and the union would present to the opposite, and they couldn't make decisions because they weren't the employer either. They were representatives. They'd have to go back. It was delaying things forever.

Do you have any comments about that?